Friday, November 04, 2005

Extension Tension | by Pat

Major Misconceptions, a new novel by Phil Taylor. Among his sage wisdom:

Weis parlayed a 5-2 record into a 10-year extension...
False. Weis had a six-year contract and received a five-year extension. Ty Willingham also started with a six-year contract, by the way.

More sagacity:
...the powers that be at Notre Dame, who haven't made a truly smart coaching decision in recent memory (with the possible exception of hiring Weis), still don't have a clue.
Again, false. The "powers that be" aren't the same "powers that be" that presided over the Davie and Willingham errors; there's been a regime change and an attitude adjustment that Taylor fails to note. (In fact, attitudes towards the football program often shift when a new prez is sworn in: Elmer Layden was gone a year after Fr. Hugh O'Donnell became president in 1940, and Frank Leahy retired a year after Fr. Hesburgh took over in 1952.) As any casual fan of ND can tell you, the energy instilled by Jenkins is striking and dramatic, and the old attitudes have been mostly swept away.



Let's approach this extension like a financial analyst would. Let's approach it like, maybe -- just pulling names out of a hat here -- Morgan Stanley CEO Phil Purcell would, or a valuation and asset-pricing-model expert like John Affleck-Graves would. Contrary to the constant refrain of "just seven games into the season...", Charlie's actually been on the job for about ten months, which is a pretty good amount of time to form an opinion about the man, his approach, and his prospects for the future. What would your typical Titan of Finance say about handing Charlie a five-year extension at this stage in the game? They might look at the following indicators...

Indicator #1: He hires great assistants.

Cutcliffe. Minter. Lewis. Latina. Ianello. Haywood. When Weis named his assistant coaching staff, the football world was impressed (you've probably heard the mall cops/SEAL team line before, presumably uttered by an NFL scout). Charlie's got a big ego, but there's nothing immodest about the way he hires assistants; Charlie's not afraid to go after the best of the best, even if it means hiring people smarter than himself. Case in point: he'd never been a head coach before, so he hired three previous head coaches to help him out. It had been a while since he was out on the recruiting trail, so he hired one of the top recruiters in the country to lead the effort. A rumor's making the circuit that he had initially foregone a larger contract, so he could spread the difference around and offer his prospective assistants a higher salary. More important than a competitive salary, however, is the sense that Charlie attracts coaching talent because of his own NFL experience and acumen. Haywood said that the top reason he returned to his alma mater was to learn at the foot of a multiple Super Bowl winner.

This bodes well for the future. When one of his coaches should leave for a job elsewhere -- and they will -- I expect Charlie to do what he did back in the spring: identify the next "best of the best" and get him on the staff. When David Cutcliffe missed spring practice due to health problems, Ron Powlus was already in position to slide from behind a desk to the practice field to help coach the quarterbacks; in June, when Cutcliffe officially resigned due to health reasons, Weis quickly named the overqualified Peter Vaas as his replacement only two days later. Cultivating his own "coaching tree" is something the very best coaches in the history of football (Lombardi, Walsh, Parcells, Belichick) have always done, and Charlie's planting the seeds right now.

Indicator #2: He recruits his ass off.

Charlie's first recruiting class was hindered by a) the awkwardness of the coaching transition and b) his pledge to finish out the season with the Patriots. Results were mixed; he lost a couple of guys that were solid under Ty and gained a few back in the final month. But after signing day, he was already onto the 2006 class, and kicked things off with a whirlwind cross-country recruiting trip that was impressive, to say the least. Early returns are nothing short of incredible; ND should have their first top-5 recruiting haul in a long time. Most importantly, Charlie just enjoys it.
"I'm going to recruit like they haven't been recruited before," Weis said. "This is no slight on any of the coaches before me. But I just love recruiting. I have a passion for recruiting."
Most coaches get a recruiting bounce during their first year: the novelty of a new coach, a new spirit, etc. Still, no one was predicting that Weis would be able to land twelve recruits before the Irish even snapped a football; the total count is already up to nineteen, and the class is almost full. The defensive backfield, much maligned in recent years, has already received committments from five defensive backs, two of whom are Army All-American cornerbacks. One of the top running backs in the country chose Weis earlier this summer, before Pete Carroll could even get a home visit. And not one, but two highly-ranked quarterbacks already committed to the Irish. If Weis could land these kids when public perception of the program was knocked down a bit, imagine what he can do with ND as a hot ticket.

Indicator #3: He knows how to coach.

What Charlie's done in the short span of seven games is almost a work of alchemy: he turned a moribund, leaden offense into a golden powerhouse, ninth-best in the country. It's worthwhile to note that he did this with only three players named to any awards watchlists (Quinn, Fasano, and Fitzpatrick), and no preseason All-Americans. (By point of comparison, Bob Davie left Ty with seven preseason All-Americans, including Jeff Faine, who was 1st-team. Ten of Ty's starters on offense in 2002 made the NFL; five of them are currently starting. But I digress.) Quinn's probably the most striking example of Charlie's coaching ability; he turned an NFL draft day afterthought into a likely top-5 pick.

The point is Charlie maximized the talent in a way that Ty couldn't; ten starters returned from the offense, but to look at last year's ineptitude, you wouldn't realize it. Would Jeff Samardzija be an All-American candidate under the old coaching staff? Hell no. Anybody with eyes can see the improvement on the field; statistics just back up what we already know. Let's look at the relative improvement between Ty's first year and Charlie's first year.

Category 2001 2002
2004 2005
Coach
Davie
Ty

Ty
Weis
Run Off. Rank 30 45
85 55
Pass Off. Rank 114 104
54 5
Total Off. Rank 110 107
81 9
Run Def. Rank 39 6
4 25
Pass Eff. D Rank 38 8
98 58
Total Def. Rank 14 10
54 96
Point Differential -1 +74
0 +88

Willingham made a good defense a little better, and failed to revive a terrible offense. Two years later, the offense was a smidge better, but the defense was terrible. Charlie, in one year, took the 81st-ranked offense and made it top 10 -- again, with all the same players. Raise an eyebrow at the 2005 defensive ranking if you like, but let's visit this number again at the end of the year. If anything, the huge increase in pass efficiency defense indicates that while we are giving up yards, we are keeping teams out of the endzone better than we did last year. I'm betting we'll see continued improvement on the defensive side of the ball.

Indicator #4: He loves ND.

This isn't a deal-clincher, because if it was, Gerry Faust would still be our coach, working under a lifetime contract. But genuine affinity for the University is a job requirement for the head coach at ND, I believe. I think to recruit at ND, deal with alumni, and steward the football program effectively, you have to exhibit some authentic Irish love. You have to see the place as a destination rather than a stepping-stone to other jobs, and to take advantage of the lore and the "mystique" -- for all that mumbo-jumbo to work, you have to believe it. You have to live it, and you have to breathe it.

Charlie legitimately breathes it.
"The week of the first bye, Kevin (White) and I sat down and I said there would be a possibility that people would start talking about things like (the NFL). I wanted to confirm to him that he never had to worry about there being any interest on my part.

The problem with that is, as the season goes on, it becomes more problematic the more it is brought up. It can have a negative effect on recruiting. It has a negative effect on the people you are around. We wanted to nip that in the bud. I told Kevin in the first bye week that we would re-visit it the week of the second bye week because I would never talk about anything like this other than if it was a bye week because I think it would be a distraction.

Between Kevin, Father Jenkins, Phil Purcell and the Board of Trustees, our lawyers and our Sports Information people, everyone worked together with my family and Bob LaMonte and we decided to get this out of the way now and erase any doubt. My intent was the same from the day I got here. I said the same thing from day one and anyone that has been around me. When I say it, I mean it. I don't just say it for idle chatter. This puts and end to any of those questions/rumors.

I am goal-oriented but I am more loyal than anything else. This isn't just any job for me. This is my alma mater. When I came here, the thought of people thinking that I was here for a short time fix - those type of things do effect me. It is very important for me to be loyal to this University.
Weis mentioned how he wants to be at Notre Dame until his son, Charlie Jr., graduates from Notre Dame. Charlie is in the 7th grade now, which means he will graduate from college in the spring of 2015, which, incidentally is the final year of Charlie's contract. I don't think that date is a conicidence.



So, that's four stand-alone indicators of future success; four pillars that show that Charlie Weis is worth having around at ND for a while. And that's before mentioning any extenuating circumstances, like the possibilty of a job opening in the NFL (the ostensible reason for signing the extension in the first place). Just because Charlie is a known and presumably wanted commodity in the NFL doesn't mean it's good to lock him up; after all, this is a league that provided employment to Jerry Glanville for long stretches. No, the reason you sign Charlie is because you've looked at his record to date, contemplated his chances for future success, and concluded that he's a good risk.

In that context, then, the contract extension itself was largely a symbolic gesture. ND didn't suddenly come to the conclusion that Weis was a good bet just last week; the idea has been silently understood for a while now. Yes, I'm sure some monetary concerns were addressed, but the larger reason this extension was vocalized was for peace of mind: peace of mind for Notre Dame fans that their head coach wanted to stay at Notre Dame for the long haul; peace of mind for recruits that the coach recruiting them is going to be there four years later for their graduation; and peace of mind for Charlie and his family, so he doesn't have to deal with pesky distractions while he gets down to the business of winning football games.

This was a pretty easy bet to place.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Introducing... | by Jay

Introducing your 2005 All-Moniker Team Captain.

Trouble in Volville | by Jay

Clausen pulled in the top of eighth; Fulmer calls for the righty from the pen.

Rick Clausen is angry, but not because of the benching.

Tennessee’s senior captain feels the criticism and personal attacks that led Randy Sanders to resign as offensive coordinator have been unfair and extreme.

"It’s a bunch of crap that fans and media blame coaches when players can’t go out and make plays," Clausen said. "Coaches don’t fumble, throw interceptions, miss blocks or miss passes."

"You are going to use coaches as scapegoats," Clausen said. "That’s apparently what college football has come to now. You blames coaches rather than players."

Clausen feels there is plenty of blame to go around.

"It’s just disheartening that everyone claims this is a Tennessee family and Vol Nation. But at the first sign of adversity, everybody decides to blame Coach Sanders," Clausen said.

"I’m just pissed at the whole situation and everybody. I feel like I let (Sanders) down. If I don’t throw an interception against South Carolina, we probably beat them. The players have basically forced Coach Sanders to resign, and that’s an awful feeling."
Opponent in seeming disarray? Players popping off about fans, coaches firing assistants midway through the season? Things setting up nicely for the Irish, right? I'm not so sure. Personally, I think this is a classic trap game.

(Trap game: I couldn't find an official definition of "trap game" anywhere; it seems to be one of those sports idioms that appeared in the lexicon already fully-formed, direct from Jung's collective unconsciousness. If somebody wants to provide a succinct definition of a "trap game", we're all ears.)

In any case, Charlie disagrees with me. (And confound it, he doesn't provide a definition, either).
Q. How would you define a trap game?

COACH WEIS: This certainly isn't one. All you have to do is watch the tape. When I sit there and give these facts and figures right there, it isn't just trying to make myself look good to make it look like we know what we're doing here. This is the scariest 3 4 team that you're ever going to go against because they're capable of beating everybody every week and they know it. Our guys know it, too. All you got to do is put on the tape. They see it. They see these things that I just talked about because I've shown them these same things I'm telling you about. They've seen it. There's no trap. You don't have to worry about a trap in a Tennessee game.
I'm sure that's the focus Charlie instilled over the past two weeks ("don't underestimate these guys"!), but it's gotta be tough to maintain proper perspective. After all, on paper, the Vols just look pathetic: 98th-ranked rushing attack, 79th passing, 99th overall. Squeaking out a meager 16 points per game. You don't have to be Gregg Easterbrook to see that a backwoods jalopy runs better than the Vols' offense. I'll be disappointed if we give up more than a couple of touchdowns. Final score: ND 24, Tennessee 9.

(Is this the kind of mentality they're talking about when they talk about a "trap" game?)

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Statistically Speaking | by Pat

• Tennessee is one of 10 programs that can claim a winning career record against Notre Dame. (Other 9 - Chicago, Florida State, Georgia, Great Lakes, NC State, Nebraska, Michigan, Oregon State, and Yale) So far the teams have met 7 times with the Volunteers claiming a 4-3 advantage. If Notre Dame manages to win the game -- keep in mind that ND has only won one of the three home games against the Vols - the series will be tied. There are 7 programs that have a tied series with the Irish. How many can you name? (Answers at the end).

• Breaking it down by quarter. So, do you think Notre Dame can be considered a 2nd Quarter team this year?

Score By Quarters_ _1st__2nd__3rd__4th__OT__Total_
Notre Dame4510349653265
Opponents481948566177

• So far the Notre Dame offense has set 17 offensive records. They are:
Single Game touchdown passes - 6 (Quinn vs. BYU)
Single-Game touchdown receptions - 4 (Stovall vs. BYU)
Single-Game receptions - 14 (Stovall vs. BYU)
Single-Game, 2 Players with 10 or more receptions - Stovall (14) & Samardzija (10) v. BYU
Pass Completions in a game- 33 (tied; Quinn vs. MSU)
Consecutive Games with a TD Pass - 12 (Quinn)
Consecutive Game with a TD Reception - 7 (Samardzija)
Consecutive Game with a TD Pass to start a season - 7 (Samardzija)
Consecutive 100-yd. rushing game to begin season - 4 (Walker)
Consecutive games throwing over 300 yards - 4 (Quinn)
Single-season touchdown passes - 20 (Quinn)
Single-season TD receptions - 11 (tied; Samaradzija)
Single-season 300+ yd. passing games - 4 (Quinn)
Single-season 400+ passing games - 3 (Quinn)
Career 400+ yd. passing games - 4 (Quinn)
Career games passing for 250+ yds. - 11 (Quinn)
And if that's not enough, there are another 15 records within reach, although admittedly some are closer than others. For a list, check out page 23 of the ND/UT game release notes on und.com. Considering most of the offense comes back next year, I hope they don't go to too much trouble to get the 2005 records into the record book.

Season Running Averages

I made some changes for this edition of the running averages. First, the chart was getting pretty big so I combined the stats of the first six games into the column labeled "1st Six". If you still want to see the game by game breakdown, here's the link to that chart. Second, there were some excellent comments last time concerning some insightful stats that weren't included on the chart. So, passing efficiency (for Quinn only), scoring offense, passing efficiency defense, scoring defense, red zone defense, red zone touchdown defense have been added. Enjoy.

Category BYU 1st Six
2005
2004
Yards per rush
1.9
3.6
3.5
3.32
Avg yards per PA
11.4 8.4 8.8 7.2
Avg yards per PC
14.6 13.3 13.5 13.4
Pass completion %
78%
63%
65%
54%
3rd downs conv.
6/11 (55%)
46/96 (48%)
52/107 (49%)
68/183 (37%)
Rushing yd avg 44.0
170.8
152.71 (50th)
127.4 (85th)
Passing yd avg 467.0
318.8
340.0 (4th)
218.1 (54th)
Passing Eff. (Quinn)
222.0
150.9
161.87 (9th)
125.87 (55th)
Total offense yd avg
511.0
489.7
492.71 (8th)
345.5 (81st)
Scoring Offense
49.0
36.0
37.86 (12th)
24.1 (72nd)
Time of Possession
26:21 35:12 33:56 30:50
Red Zone TDs 3/4 (75%)
21/27 (81%)
24/ 31 (77%)
25 / 36 (69%)

Defense

Category BYU
1st Six
2005
2004
Yards per rush given up
2.2
4.4
4.0
2.7
Avg yards per PA
7.0 7.7
7.6 7.9
Avg yards per PC
12.2 14.8
14.3 13.6
Pass completion percentage
58%
52%
53%
58%
Quarterback sacks
4
13
17 30
Rushing yd avg. against 75.0
126.3
119.0 (27th)
88.2 (4th)
Passing yd avg. against 317.0
304.8
306.6 (114th)
281.2 (116th)
Passing Eff. def. avg.
122.73
122.24
122.44 (54th)
138.34 (98th)
Total yd offense avg. against 392.0
431.2
425.6 (97th)
369.4 (54th)
Scoring Defense
23.0
25.67
25.29 (58th)
24.08 (46th)
Red Zone Defense
3/4 (75%)
16/23 (70%)
19/27 (70%)
33/38 (87%)
Red Zone TD Def.
3/4 (75%)
13/23 (57%)
16/27 (59%)
19/38 (50%)

Turnovers

Category BYU
1st Six
2005
2004
Interceptions by ND
2
7
9
9
Fumbles Forced / Recovered
0/0
12/7
12/ 7
27 / 12
Turnovers gained
2 14
16 21
Had Intercepted 0
5
5
10
Fumbles / Lost 3/2
9/3
10/ 5
15 / 6
Turnovers lost
2
8
10
16
Turnover Margin +0
+6
+6
+5

Special Teams

Category BYU
1st Six
2005
2004
Kickoff return average
17.2
19.8
19.1
18.7
Kickoff return average allowed
21.7 19.1
19.6 19.9
Punt return average
7.5 16.5
15.2 10.8
Punt return average allowed
11.8
5.2
6.6
8.2


Answer - ND has a tied series with Clemson, Knox, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio State, Penn State, and Syracuse.

Pretty much everything you need to know about Jason Whitlock | by Jay

(In case you missed all the hullabaloo yesterday, you might want to read this first, and then this excellent and welcome rebuttal from an unlikely source.)

Jason Whitlock answered a lengthy and considered email from an African-American ND fan with this:

From: Ballstate68@aol.com
Date: Nov 2, 2005 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Notre Dame and racism
To: [address withheld]

Nate

I'll let white folks know you stood up.

Although I'm quite sure you've already told them.

jason

Look, there are some debatable points in Nate's email, and some of his claims are definitely worth discussing. But instead of a) engaging him or b) ignoring him, Whitlock chose to call him an Uncle Tom.

Whitlock should be fired.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

I'll take Greek mathematicians for $100, Alex | by Jay

If you follow baseball at all, you've probably heard of stats-guru Bill James and the many formulas he devised for analyzing baseball. In 1980, James suggested that a baseball team's winning percentage could be predicted based on the number of runs they scored and the number of runs they allowed. He devised a formula to calculate this, and called it the Pythagorean Method due to its resemblance to the famous geometry theorem. In its basic form, it looks like this:

Expected Wins = G * PF² / (PF² + PA²)

G=Total Games; PF=Points (or Runs) For; PA=Points Against.
The method isn't perfect, but it works remarkably well. Over a 162-game baseball season, the Pythagorean method predicts the final record for most teams within three games of their actual performance.

Several statisticians have taken the Pythagorean Method and applied it to other sports, including football. However, because a football season has vastly fewer games than baseball, the statistical sample size is a lot smaller, and thus the results aren't as precise. Despite the higher margin for error, it's still an interesting benchmark to gauge a team's performance against its expected win total.

One of the things that James realized was that the value of the exponent shouldn't necessarily be fixed at 2. As you change that value in the formula, moving it up or down, you can decrease the error rate and bring the projections closer to the actual results. For the sum total of Notre Dame football the most accurate exponent seems to be 1.8.

I applied the Pythagorean Method against every Notre Dame football season from Rockne on. Hit the link for the complete table:


Some analysts like to explain the method as showing you which teams "over-achieved", but I'm not sure that nomenclature accurately reflects what the formula reveals. In my opinion, it's better to talk about teams as "over-performing" or "under-performing", because what the Pythagorean method really measures is how many games you were supposed to win based on a strict measurement of points scored and points given up; it's not a measurement of how good a team really is. Perhaps another way to talk about it is in terms of Fate: which teams were "luckiest", and which teams were snakebitten.

The funny thing is, you can spin this formula any number of ways. For instance, I'm sure no one's surprised to see Willingham's 2002 team on the Lucky end of things; that was a squad that won a lot of games with smoke and mirrors. Note, though, that Holtz's '88 team is even "luckier": wins of 19-17 and 31-30 probably had something to do with it. As you can see, the formula seems to imply less about the overall quality of the individual season, and more about the vagaries of lucky bounces, the agony of missed field goals, and the gray twilight of hard-fought, close games, where one team was just a little bit better that day.

One thing that the method does show is that teams that under-perform their point differential tend to get better the following year, and teams that over-perform tend to get worse. This doesn't always hold true, but it's pretty common. For instance, check out the ten most under-performing teams from the Rockne era onwards:

Season Coach Games PF PA Wins Win% Ex.W Ex.W% Diff. Next Yr Imprv.
1931 ANDERSON 9 215 40 6 .667 8.58 .954 -.287 .778 +.111
1965 PARSEGHIAN 10 270 73 7 .700 9.13 .913 -.213 .900 +.200
1981 FAUST 11 232 160 5 .455 7.27 .661 -.207 .545 +.091
1932 ANDERSON 9 255 31 7 .778 8.80 .978 -.200 .333 -.444
1925 ROCKNE 10 200 64 7 .700 8.86 .886 -.186 .900 +.200
1986 HOLTZ 11 299 219 5 .455 7.00 .637 -.182 .667 +.212
1922 ROCKNE 10 222 27 8 .800 9.78 .978 -.178 .900 +.100
1983 FAUST 12 316 177 7 .583 8.87 .739 -.156 .583 .000
1969 PARSEGHIAN 11 351 134 8 .727 9.35 .850 -.123 .909 +.182
1942 LEAHY 11 184 99 7 .636 8.29 .753 -.117 .900 +.264

Lots of improvement the following year. Likewise, the ten most over-performing, or "luckiest" teams usually suffered a letdown:

Season Coach Games PF PA Wins Win% Ex.W Ex.W% Diff. Next Yr Imprv.
1933 ANDERSON 9 32 80 3 .333 1.45 .161 +.172 .667 +.333
1988 HOLTZ 12 393 156 12 1.000 10.09 .841 +.159 .923 -.077
1993 HOLTZ 12 427 215 11 .917 9.30 .775 +.142 .500 -.417
2002 WILLINGHAM 13 290 217 10 .769 8.16 .628 +.142 .417 -.353
1939 LAYDEN 9 100 73 7 .778 5.74 .638 +.140 .778 .000
1998 DAVIE 12 320 248 9 .750 7.35 .613 +.137 .417 -.333
2000 DAVIE 12 353 267 9 .750 7.48 .623 +.127 .455 -.295
1954 BRENNAN 10 231 115 9 .900 7.78 .778 +.122 .800 -.100
1989 HOLTZ 13 427 189 12 .923 10.56 .813 +.110 .750 -.173
1990 HOLTZ 12 359 259 9 .750 7.71 .643 +.107 .769 +.019

How lucky will Charlie be this year? Let's look at the season to date, and extrapolate scores of the remaining games.

Right now, we're about 11 points better on offense than our opponents usually give up, and about 7 points better on defense. Applying those averages against what our remaining opponents usually do gives us this set of predictions:

Opponent Avg PA
Avg PF
ND
Opp
Tennessee 16 16.14 27 9
Navy 25.71 29.86 37 22
Syracuse 24.13 15.63 35 8
Stanford 29.14 27.71 40 20

So for the whole season, that gives us a total Points For of 401, and total Points Against of 231. Using those point totals, Pythagoras says we should expect 8 wins.

Season Coach Games PF PA Wins Win% Ex.W Ex.W% Diff.
2005 WEIS 11 401 231 9 .818 8.03
.730 +.089

Eight wins expected, but we got 9. Pythagoras would say that Charlie was somewhat Lucky. Based on what I saw against Michigan State and Southern Cal, I might beg to differ.

All told, I think the Pythagorean Method falls into the category of "amusing statistical confection" rather than hardcore analysis. I wouldn't count on this to tell you anything earth-shattering, but it is kind of fun to look at the formula and the numbers it spits out. If you're interested in some further reading on the Pythagorean Method, here are a few links.

The Football Project
Pigskin Pythagoras
Baseball Prospectus
Football Outsiders